Is it time to think again on the Hunting Act?
THE beginning of November, when 300 hunts across England and Wales hold their traditional opening meets, seems a relevant time to once again expose the flaws and irregularities contained in the Hunting Act 2004.
If anyone thinks that this law has improved animal welfare, they might care to reconsider and examine exactly what the act does.
It is legal to chase wild mammals out of cover using dogs as long as only two are used and "reasonable steps" are taken to ensure the animal is shot. But it is illegal to use three hounds to flush out an animal and a second offence is committed if there is no intention to shoot it.
It legal to use a terrier underground to flush out a fox and kill it to protect birds to be shot for sport, such as pheasants, but illegal to use exactly the same method to protect farm livestock or a rare species.
It is legal to hunt a rabbit with dogs, though illegal to hunt a hare with dogs. The act permits a hare that has already been shot and wounded to be hunted, but not a wounded fox.
Finally, it is legal to hunt a rat with dog, but illegal to hunt a mouse with dog.
While the supporters of this law claimed it would improve animal welfare it is clear that their true aim was to prevent a particular type of hunting upheld by a particular type of person.
However, at all levels the act has failed miserably. The majority of successful prosecutions have been for poaching offences, already illegal under pre-existing legislation, while organised hunting has survived, albeit in a different form.
As for animal welfare, the limited evidence so far indicates that wild mammal welfare has declined.
Is it not time, therefore, to consider a more practical and principled way to improve the welfare and management of our wild mammals and forget this obsession with banning the use of scenting hounds – a natural and humane method that is selective and leaves no wounded survivors?
James Barrington
Animal Welfare Consultant
Countryside Alliance
3 Comments
by Roger_S
Thursday, November 03 2011, 6:46PM
“James Barrington has no formal 'animal welfare' qualifications, he's just a very confused paid employee of the Countryside Alliance. Please note that he lives and works in London but the irony of the hunting fraternity's usual argument "townies don't know what they're talking about" is sadly lost on him. If he is knowledgeable on animal welfare issues in Derbyshire then why has he not offered an opinion on the proposed Foston mega factory farm?
Factory farming is one of the biggest threats now facing the ecology of the British countryside and this gentleman and the Countryside Alliance as a whole have never uttered a single word against the practice.
If the Hunting Act is so unenforceable and a shambles, why worry about? Laws fall by the wayside all the time through lack of practicality. That the CA waste so many man-hours telling everyone it's rubbish and £1000s on a waste-of-time appeal for the recently convicted Fernie Hunt just goes to show how worried they are.
As Sarah says "we know what you were doing this Autumn" and frankly any normal right-minded person would be horrified what you do for fun Mr Barrington.”
by davetaylor2
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 9:08PM
“couldn't give a jot, it's not important!”
by SarahL123
Wednesday, November 02 2011, 10:18AM
“All your rhetoric proves is that the Hunting Act doesn't go far enough. As it is the law is regularly flouted - I have seen the Hunt in action, watched a pair of foxes chased by hounds and riders, and heard the term 'cubbing' still used despite it's apparent illegal status.
Organised hunting has survived, but not in a different form, just with different terminology (eg Autumn Hunt) and is cruel and unnecessary however you try to dress it up.”